Source: ACSOL
The Second District Court of Appeals has issued a decision that overturns a decision by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denying a registrant’s petition for removal from the registry. According to today’s appellate court decision, the trial judge’s decision was improper because the District Attorney failed to prove that the registrant poses a current danger to public safety.
“This decision is very important because it upholds a prior appellate court decision, People v. Thai, which ruled that the burden of proof is upon the District Attorney, not the registrant, in petition cases,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci.
In today’s decision, the appellate court noted that the trial court “appears to have committed the sin condemned in Thai — namely,…, the court gave controlling weight to the ‘egregious’ nature of defendant’s offenses despite 37 years of law-abiding behavior.” The registrant was convicted in 1983 of violating Pena Code Section 288(a), lewd or lascivious acts with a person under the age of 14. Individuals convicted of that offense are assigned to Tier 2, which requires registration for at least 20 years.
The appellate court also noted that the registrant had “unfailing compliance” with his sex offender registration for 37 years, completed a sex offender treatment program, was married for 34 years, served in the military and had steady employment. The appellate court further noted that the District Attorney argued that the registrant could have been convicted of an offense that is now a lifetime offense. The appellate court dismissed that argument based upon the language of the Tiered Registry Law which states clearly that tier assignments are to be made based upon the offense for which a person was convicted, not an offense for which a person could have been convicted.
“In this decision, the appellate court ruled that they are bound by both the Thai decision as well as the intent of the legislature intent in their review of trial court decisions that deny petitions,” stated Bellucci. “Two appellate courts have ruled on this issue and both courts have reversed trial court decisions that denied a petition.”
Download the decision:
Great news
Janice, Harry here:
My offense is like the decision noted here, and , and should exempt me from having to register every year. However l cannot afford the lawyer fees. Can a Public Defender help me?
email: …
phone: …
Please help me!
JOY TO THE WORLD, the law applies to all! This power-grabbing attempt to “own someone for life”, and to punish forever for something literally a half lifetime away, should never be in the American jurisprudence. Yes, attempted punishment by the DA and the Hearing Court, would have been egregious, cruel and unusual, 8th Amendment prohibiting, punishment on a very contrite and law-abiding citizen.
What is so very frustrating to me is that no court should have had any jurisdiction whatsoever because no one should ever be on a public registry to begin with!
Any sort of registry of “undesirables” – especially a public one – reeks of the vilest forms of fascism! The registry system is a stain on our great nation and must be, like the cancer that it is, excised! The public notification and doxxing of CITIZENS of the United States must be repudiated at every turn!
I would like to express sincere thanks and gratitude to Janice and ACSOL. I firmly believe that without her and ACSOL’s efforts and pressure through the years, these kind of positive news for registrants would not be happening and we would still all be stuck in a lifetime registry. I for one am hugely thankful of her and can’t wait to see what changes will happen in the next couple of years because of her.
Thank you again Janice!!
Joseph
I’m grateful for the positive news.
🙏🏽
Power Hunger Move on the lower court Judge. Hats off to the Higher court ruling. No one should be forced on a registry for life. That is power hunger system if someone is that bad lock them up. Do not make them live their entire lives with no way to provide, no way to fit in, no way to ever have a equal chance at survival that is like breaking a deer’s legs and releasing it into the wild and expecting it to live a normal life, it has no chance to survive. Retroactive applying these barbaric punitive punishments upon this countries citizens after a conviction is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
When I hear that someone is a government attorney or judge I immediately assume that the person is an irredeemable piece of shit. I can’t help it. More often than not, I am right. I make that assumption until they prove that I am wrong. I will shun them and their entire family, just in case the scum has spread.
We shouldn’t forget that the enemies of moral, good Americans live right here in our country.
Janice, I want to thank you with all my heart for the hard work which you and your staff perform. I am a Tier 1, with a 647.6 a1 for kissing a 16 year old minors foot while intoxicated. I had no idea how serious this was and what it would cost me. I have received a 1203.4 dismissal and look forward to petitioning for removal in 2026. I have donated funds and will continue to support the work to improve the lives of us offenders. Thank You and God bless!
Did the state seriously argue that his 1980’s conviction should be administered under 2006 law?
I seriously think the DA that made that argument at the trial court and the judge that bought it should be required to submit to some kind of competence evaluation from the state bar. Granted, I know it likely would have prevailed 20 years ago, but still…
If anyone’s thinking about going Through the public defenders office in Los Angeles County, don’t waste your time. It was the most horrible experience I’ve ever experienced in my life. It took them eight months just to get me on calendar and they didn’t even show up to not one court date, it was just me and the DA in an empty court room and she denied my petition.
The scary part about it the DA has the power to to set the next eligible petition date, which is no lesser than 1 year and longer than 5.
The other thing that was interesting, was when denying my petition, she stated, “hasn’t met their mandatory minimum registration” But she wouldn’t explain to the court, to what or how she was measuring my time.
The lower court judge who denied this petition, David Carl Brougham, is the same judge that protected corrupt sex crimes prosecutor Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney Lauren Nicole Guber after she withheld evidence in a different case. Brougham refused to hold Guber accountable for her actions.
These Tyrants, whether cops, prosecutors, and judges (ironically, Brougham is a former prosecutor himself) all think the same way and protect one another’s misconduct. Again, they are all corrupt Tyrants.
I like this: “Defendant is therefore entitled to be removed from the sex offense registry because he has not reoffended and has been registering for well in excess of the minimum 20 years.”